Evening Post. TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1923. SPEAKING IN TIME

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 91, 17 April 1923, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1923. SPEAKING IN TIME

General Smuts has joined the chorus of those who urge that the British Commonwealth should break its official silence and make known its attitude in the Euhr imbroglio. Unofficially the silence was broken long ago—indeed, there has been a steady flow of comment since Mr. Bonar Law declined to be a party to the Ruhr occupation. From the beginning there have been signs of disapproval of the French adventiire. Gradually the volume of this unofficial disapproval has increased, and at the same time the agitation for official British action has grown stronger. Now it may be said that the Government passivity is supported only by the strongly Conservative Press and the aggressively Francophile Kothermere—late Northcliffe—papers. A reparations crisis doth make strange bedfellows. " The Times," which counselled patience when the Liberals pressed for reference to the League of Nations, has since urged the Government to make some step to end the seeming deadlock, and " The Spectator," which has consistently been the advocate of Mr. Bonar Law and tranquillity, has been . even more marked in its insistence upon the necessity for action to induce Germany and France to share the tranquillity. There is tranquillity still in the ranks of the Conservative Party, but it has not proved contagious.

As a statement of general principles in favour of peace-making instead of passivity (not indifference as General Smuts says) the plea of the South African Prime Minister is admirable. The position of the British Commonwealth should be denned, he says, " not in fhe jingo spirit" (possibly meaning aa the over-warm advocates of France would act), " not in the spirit of arrogance and intermeddling" (as the Francophobe spirit would dictate), " but in sincere and impartial friendship to all, in the spirit of humble but determined loyalty to the great cause of peace." We can imagine that the audience at City Hall, Capetown, applauded this sentence, and waited breathlessly for the. Prime Minister to explain his plan. It may be still waiting; for no plan was given. What General' Smuts now advocates has been the text of thoughtful speeches and reasoned articles from moderate statesmen and responsible newspapers for weeks past. Yet none has been able to suggest a means of overcoming the French determination to accept no intervention which may lead to abandonment of the occupation without payment of reparations. It was reported on Saturday by the " Daily Express " correspondent in Paris that the French Ambassador had presented a Note from M. Poincare asking definitely whether Britain accepted France's policy of remaining in the Ruhr till reparations were paid. It was stated that if the policy were accepted M. Poincare would make concessions in the reparations total, but if it were not he would make a striking speech at Dunkirk on Sunday. The Dunkirk speech (reported yesterday) makes no mention of concessions, but emphasises the determination to exact the .full amount of reparations, and also to protect the frontiers of France against fresh aggression.

If the " Express " story of the Note is correct, it is plain that Mr. Bonar Law either said "No," or said nothing. But whatever in-! spired the Dunkirk speech, it must be apparent that M. Poincare offers no encouragement to those who would seek to persuade France to a more moderate course.

The League of Nations, en-ya General Smuts, is in itself devoid of power.and can only vely on the Ml disinterested backing of those having the power and no selfish, aims of their own to sei-ve.

This has been admitted by the greatest supporters of the League, who have realised the difficulty of obtaining the full disinterested backing, and have hesitated to place upon the League a burden greater than it could bear. ■ Ar , other difficulty lies in the fact thai, those nations which have the power are not disinterested —except America, which in not in the League. Britain is not a party to the Ruhr occupation, but she is deeply interested in the result, and were, she to act she would be accused at once of serving selfish aims. The accusation has already been brought against her, because she has not supported France. It is said that the hope of British intervention is stiffening German resistance. Those whose duty it is to speak for the British Commonwealth are doubtless fully aware of whatever ill-consequences may attend their ellenoe. JThat their

silence is maintained, we may be sure, is due to their conviction that Speech now would but antagonise France, and wreck all hope of successful peacemaking in the future. General Smuts has urged that Britain should speak before it is too late. Mr. Bonar Law's speeches and actions show that he anticipates more disastrous results from speech which is made too soon,